Pages

Saturday, December 27, 2014

"Monks,
I will teach you *everything. Listen & pay close attention. I will
speak."

"As
you say, Blessed One," the monks responded.

The
Blessed One said, "What is everything? Simply the eye & forms, ear
& sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile
sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called everything. Anyone
who would say, 'Repudiating this everything, I will describe another,' if
questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable
to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond
range."

(Sabba
Sutta, Samyutta Nikaya 35:23, Pali canon)

*Note:
The Pali word sabba translated here as ‘everything’ is elsewhere rendered ‘the
all.’ As this is rather an obscure term, somewhat philosophical sounding, here
a more generally-understandable word has been used. Moreover, in effect, both
translations amount to the same thing which is the totality of one’s
experience, both psychological & physical, and as one implication of this
teaching is that complicated philosophies of self are negated, the simple word ‘everything’
seems appropriate.

his
time of year is when we usually remember the ideal of “goodwill
to all men.” In these more ‘enlightened’ modern times, the use of the word “men”
is often considered redundant, better replaced with “people,” “everyone,” or
simply omitted altogether. So, perhaps “goodwill to all” is more appropriate
nowadays. Most reasonably-minded people would surely agree with this, wouldn’t
they? After all, are we wishing goodwill only to men or to women & children
also? Smiling to a stranger, a friendly greeting & generosity to those in
need are all ways in which this worthy sentiment can be put into practice. Indeed,
any act of kindness is a manifestation of the wish, “Goodwill to all.”

In
Buddhism, goodwill is an important quality praised by Buddha & all wise
teachers. Called metta in Pali and maitri in Sanskrit, the main
two scriptural languages of Buddhism, goodwill is the subject of many important
discourses by Buddha. Also translated as loving-kindness or just kindness, metta
is a mental quality that Buddhists are encouraged to develop both in meditative
practices & in daily life. One way that it is expressed is in the phrase, “May
all beings be happy,” which is also rendered, “May all beings be at ease.” To
have goodwill with our family, friends, neighbors & strangers is an important
aspect of Buddhist life, and without it we might consider someone only ‘half a
Buddhist,’ at best.

Analyzing
the phrase, “May all beings be happy,” it’s worth looking at the word “beings.”
Why do we use this word and not people or humans? As Buddhists, we foster
goodwill for all sentient beings. Any being that is capable of thought, feeling
or suffering (dukkha) is worthy of our kindness, and if we open our
hearts appropriately, a natural outpouring of goodwill will flow towards all
such beings. Traditionally, the list of beings worthy of our goodwill includes
not only humans but also gods, demons, ghosts, spirits & animals. Presumably,
extraterrestrials are also rightful recipients of metta also, as are conscious,
feeling forms of artificial intelligence.

Whether
we believe in gods, ghosts and ‘greys’ or not, it is certain that animals
qualify as sentient beings, and therefore are appropriate ‘targets’ of
goodwill. So, for Buddhists, it isn’t only humans that should receive our
goodwill at this time of year, but also dogs, cats, birds, fish, spiders, insects
& any other creatures that we encounter. Putting out food & water for
birds or other animals during the festive season is a wonderful way to be kind
towards our fellow suffering beings, as is a kindly pat on the head as opposed to
a kick up the tail! Moreover, perhaps it might be an idea to think of the
animals that will be slaughtered for our consumption during the festivities: Do
they really need to die so that we can eat their flesh during the holidays? Is
a nut cutlet as opposed to a turkey a more kindly choice?

S

ome
might say that all this is good and well, but if our actions are kind but our
minds are full of unkind thoughts, isn’t there something inherently
contradictory there? Moreover, once the festive period comes to an end, or our
patience is pushed too far, won’t the outer thin veneer of kindliness disappear
like a mirage, only to be replaced with a rush of anger or ill-will? Well, in
truth, the above is quite possible. But, there are practical steps that we can
take to not only sustain our goodwill over yuletide, but also beyond into our
everyday lives over the coming years. One such way is to cultivate goodwill (called
metta-bhavana in Pali), which is a popular practice found across various
Buddhist schools in a variety of ways, but all of which share the common goal
of developing a mind full of goodwill & harmlessness. The method described
below is the one found in very early Buddhist texts, and attributed to Buddha
himself. It is not necessary to sit in a cross-legged meditation pose for this
practice, though one can if one wishes (especially if the intent is to develop
deep levels of concentration, but that isn’t the case here).

“One abides, having
suffused with a mind of benevolence one direction of the world, likewise the second, likewise the third, likewise the fourth, and so above,
below, around and everywhere, and to all as to himself; one abides suffusing
the entire universe with benevolence, with a mind grown great, lofty, boundless
and free from enmity and ill will.”

(Buddha,
Vatthupama Sutta, Majjhima Nikaya 7, Pali canon)Cultivating
goodwill this way as often as possible will soften the mind, making it more
prone to kindness and less likely to get angry or aggressive towards others. It
also facilitates an ability to develop empathy towards others, feeling their
pain & hurt, and becoming a better person for it. Another benefit is that
one actually becomes happier within oneself, for one is happier with oneself,
knowing that kindness and not ill-will dominate the mind. There are other
advantages of metta-development described in the early texts which include: “One
sleeps easily, wakes easily, dreams no evil dreams. One is dear to human
beings, dear to non-human beings. The gods protect one. Neither fire, poison,
nor weapons can touch one. One's mind gains concentration quickly. One's
complexion is bright. One dies unconfused and – if penetrating no higher – is
headed for the Brahma worlds (Mettanisamsa Sutta, Anguttara Nikaya 11:16,
Pali canon).”

Now,
some of the claims above may seem to be hyperbole, such as being impervious to
fire, poison or weapons. But, perhaps this simply means that when one is full
of kindness it’s obvious to others and they are therefore unlikely to try to burn,
poison or shoot someone they see as kind. Whatever the case, this author can
vouch from personal experience that cultivation of goodwill can certainly lead
to many of the other claimed benefits, such as a sound sleep, better relation s
with those that one meets (both human & animal), and that meditative
concentration is facilitated. So, as well as benefitting others through one’s
goodwill, one benefits oneself also. Everyone’s a winner with metta! This
holiday season, why not try metta meditation, or just being kinder; and why
stop there? If we all cultivate goodwill towards each other throughout our
lives, what an even more wonderful place this world would be, wouldn’t it?Related links on this site:Karaniya Metta SuttaMetta / Loving-Kindness

Sunday, December 7, 2014

Monks, for one whose awareness-release through goodwill is cultivated, developed, pursued, handed the reins and taken as a basis, given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, and well-undertaken, eleven benefits can be expected. Which eleven?One sleeps easily, wakes easily, dreams no evil dreams. One is dear to human beings, dear to non-human beings. The devas protect one. Neither fire, poison, nor weapons can touch one. One's mind gains concentration quickly. One's complexion is bright. One dies unconfused and — if penetrating no higher — is headed for the Brahma worlds.These are the eleven benefits that can be expected for one whose awareness-release through goodwill is cultivated, developed, pursued, handed the reins and taken as a basis, given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, and well-undertaken.(Metta Sutta, Anguttara Nikaya 11:16, Pali Canon. Notes: This sutta is a companion to the Karaniya Metta Sutta found here, also sometimes known as the Metta Sutta; devas are celestial beings & the brahma worlds are celestial abodes, both of which are sometimes interpreted as psychological states as much as objective realities.)

(Buddha, extracted from the Phena Sutta, Samyutta
Nikaya 22:95, Pali Canon. Notes: The above verses are a reflection on the five
aggregates, a central teaching of Buddhism; ‘Kinsman of the Sun’ is another
name for Buddha)

The Buddha taught that there is no permanent individual self (anatta), and that if we fully realize this for ourselves we will be enlightened just like him. The important word here is ‘realize,’ for if we merely hold the view of not-self, we will not actually be enlightened, but rather clinging to a concept. The concept, or view (ditthi) of not-self is, from the Buddhist perspective, an improvement on the self-view (atta-ditthi), but it is still a pale imitation of the real thing. Believing something is one thing, but knowing it is another and the Buddha stated that if we really wish to escape the claws of suffering, we must realize what the extract above by Buddhaghosa describes as “Suffering exists, but no sufferer can be found.”

The Buddha’s teaching on not-self is unique among the world’s great religions, with all the other major faiths making the assumption that there is a soul or self of some description or another (atta-ditthi). They take as true what Buddhism classes as the eternalist view (sassata-ditthi), which is one of the two extreme views criticized by the Buddha. Eternalists believe that there is a permanent, individual soul in each of us that lives forever, either being reborn life-to-life, or being sent to heaven or hell upon physical death. Hinduism is an example of a faith that postulates that an eternal self reincarnates through a myriad lifetimes, with Sikhism and Jainism promoting essentially the same idea. The three Abrahamic religions – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam – tell us that we have undying souls that either end up in heaven or hell after death, depending on our behavior during just one life upon this earth.

The other main form of self-view is the annihilationist view (uccheda-ditthi), which states that although everyone does indeed have a separate self, it does not precede or survive this life. This is essentially the materialist view that modern scientifically-influenced people hold, such as the Darwinists and other non-religious people. The difference between this view and the Buddha’s is that annihilationism still presumes the existence of a real self (atta), whereas Buddhism declares that there has never been a self (anatta). The Buddhist understanding of no-self will be explored a little later, but first, we have a brief excursion to make into a third group of false views that the Buddha listed which, like him, denied the existence of a permanent, separate self, but unlike him, also denied the law of karma.

The first of these three anti-karma beliefs is called the inefficacy-of-action-view (akiraya-ditthi), which states that because there is no self, no karma and no karma results, our actions are meaningless and without any karmic consequences. The next idea is that of the view of non-causality (ahetuka-ditthi), in which the believer in no-self holds the opinion that things happen purely by chance, without prior conditioning factors, and that in turn our actions have no direct influence on future occurrences, either. The last false understanding of there being no self and no karmic process is called the nihilistic view (nattika-ditthi). Nihilists suppose that the universe is empty not only of any self or karmic process, but that it is also therefore empty of any meaning. It doesn’t matter what we do, because there’s no one to suffer our wrong doings and no one to benefit from our virtuous behavior. As with the annihilationist view, nihilism has gained a certain popularity with some modernists, among them anarchists and materialistic hedonists, who feel that they can do whatever takes their fancy as nothing really matters anyhow.

“This world, Kaccana, for the most part depends upon a duality – upon the idea of existence and the idea of nonexistence. But for one that sees the origin of the world as it really is with correct wisdom, there is no idea of nonexistence in regard to the world. And for one who sees the cessation of the world with correct wisdom, there is no idea of existence in regard to the world.” (Samyutta Nikaya 12:15)

As his words to the monk Kaccanagotta illustrate above, the Buddha held what he considered the Middle Way between the extremes of eternalism (“the idea of existence”) and annihilationism (“the idea of nonexistence”). In this quote, by the word “world” the Buddha means the world as it is experienced, in other words, all sense data that is received, interpreted, and reacted to by the mind. It is existent in that mental and physical phenomena are apparent, and yet it is nonexistent in that there’s no distinct self here experiencing it all. In this light, it is worthwhile rereading the verse from the Visuddhimagga found at the top of this article, as long as you see that there is in truth no one actually doing the reading!

With the teachings on karma and dependent arising (paticca-samuppada), the Buddha also avoided the extreme positions taken up by those holding ideas like the inefficacy-of-action view, the view of non-causality, and the nihilist view. Karma and karmic fruition describe existence in terms and actions and their consequences; that is to say, whatever we do, say, or think has repercussions far beyond this present moment (although they certainly influence current events also.) Recognition of karma and its results negates the idea of non-causality, as well as giving nihilists pause for thought. The Buddha’s radical, and like anatta unique, teaching of dependent arising also leaves those with the inefficacy-of-action view much to ponder, in that it describes a clear and logical set of conditioning factors that give order and meaning to life. Here’s a typical description of dependent arising as given by the Buddha in the Pali Canon:

From this description of the process of dependent arising it can be seen that the Buddha espoused a very detailed alternative to the non-causal and meaningless philosophies we have been examining. Whether we accept (or even fully understand) dependent arising, the step-by-step nature of its progression from ignorance (of the way things truly are) to eventual decay and death has a certain appeal that can leave the nihilists and other hedonists seeming rather inattentive and shortsighted. If we are to be attached to views, surely the Buddha’s Right View which includes karma and dependent arising makes more sense to both the mind and heart than the views of the eternalists, annihilationists, and thir ilk. (This article is not the place to explore dependent arising in more depth, but if there is interest on the part of this blog’s readership, it certainly can be the focus of a future post.)

Returning to the Buddha’s conception of karma and rebirth, some readers may be wondering how, if there is no permanent, separate self to be reborn, rebirth takes place, and also who, if there is no such self, it is that performs actions and receives their results. Well, a highly-detailed account of dependent arising was the Buddha’s main response to this question, but in the modest environment of a blog, a somewhat simpler explanation will be attempted! It is aspects of the mind that are reborn rather than a soul or personality, as such. Mental habits, attachments, and thought processes not only traverse time and space by ‘popping up’ in our brains during this life, but can also enter an embryo or foetus, a bit like radio waves or electrical impulses traversing the ether to be received at some future point. According to the Buddha, karmic results can also manifest (in relation to the mind-elements that created them) in future lives, as well as in the present one.

Another way in which the Buddha nullifies self-view is with his teaching of the five aggregates (panca-khandha), which he stated comprised the entiety of a person, leaving nothing to be considered as a permanent, separate self or soul. The five aggregates are as follows:

• The aggregate of corporality (rupa-khandha)

• The aggregate of feeling (vedana-khandha)

• The aggregate of perception (sanna)

• The aggregate of mental formations (sankhara-khandha)

• The aggregate of consciousness (vinnana-khandha)

The first aggregate of corporality means the body, that is, the physical components that make it up; the second aggregate of feeling indicates those emotional responses to mental and physical stimuli, the three basic forms of which are pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral; the third aggregate of perception refers to the recognition of objects, both mental and physical, and includes memory; the aggregate of mental formations applies to any psychological qualities, including volition, concentration, faith, compassion, delusion, hate, and envy; the aggregate of consciousness is that awareness dependent upon one or other of the other four aggregates, such as consciousness of feeling envy. As the following quotation points out, in his teaching of the five aggregates, the Buddha leaves no room for a separate, individual soul or self:

“Now, if anyone should put the question, whether I admit any theory at all, he should be answered thus:

The Tathagata is free from any view, for the Tathagata has understood what corporeality is, and how it arises and passes away. He has understood what feeling is, and how it arises and passes away. He has understood what perception is, and how it arises and passes away. He has understood what mental formations are, and how they arise and pass away. He has understood what consciousness is, and how it arises and passes away. Therefore, I say, the Tathagata has won complete deliverance through the extinction, fading away, disappearance, rejection, and getting rid of all opinions and conjectures, of all inclination to the vainglory of ‘I’ and ‘mine.’”

(Majjhima Nikaya, 72)

It’s interesting to note in the above words that not only does the teaching of the five aggregates cancel out self-view, but it also negates any views of whether the self exists or doesn’t exist, for as written at the top of this article, the Buddha taught that we need to realize that there is no permanent separate self if we wish to awaken to reality. Clinging to the view of not-self (anatta) is not enough: we must see this Truth and then live from it to really benefit from it. Otherwise, we are caught up in the realm of views, which as the Buddha declared, he did not enter into to. Transcending both self and all views, we fulfill the words from Buddhaghosa’s verse that opened this exploration: “Nirvana exists, but no one that enters it.” Bon voyage, no one!

Friday, November 7, 2014

I have heard that at one time the Blessed One was staying at Vesali, in the Peaked Roof Hall in the Great Forest.Then Mahapajapati Gotami went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, stood to one side. As she was standing there she said to him: "It would be good, lord, if the Blessed One would teach me the Dharma in brief such that, having heard the Dharma from the Blessed One, I might dwell alone, secluded, heedful, ardent, & resolute.""Gotami, the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to passion, not to dispassion; to being fettered, not to being unfettered; to accumulating, not to shedding; to self-aggrandizement, not to modesty; to discontent, not to contentment; to entanglement, not to seclusion; to laziness, not to aroused persistence; to being burdensome, not to being unburdensome': You may categorically hold, 'This is not the Dharma, this is not the Vinaya, this is not the Teacher's instruction.'"As for the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to dispassion, not to passion; to being unfettered, not to being fettered; to shedding, not to accumulating; to modesty, not to self-aggrandizement; to contentment, not to discontent; to seclusion, not to entanglement; to aroused persistence, not to laziness; to being unburdensome, not to being burdensome': You may categorically hold, 'This is the Dharma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher's instruction.'"That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, Mahapajapati Gotami delighted at his words.

(Gotami Sutta, Anguttara Nikaya 8:53, Tipitaka)*Notes: Mahapajapati Gotami was Buddha's aunt & adoptive mother who became the first Buddhist nun, and is an important figure in the early development of Buddhism; here, Dharma indicates Buddha's teachings & Vinaya refers to the rules for monks & nuns.

Monday, October 27, 2014

“Monks, there are these two views: the view of being and the view of
non-being. Any recluses or priests who rely on the view of being, adopt the
view of being, accept the view of being, are opposed to the view of non-being.
Any recluses or priests who rely on the view of non-being, adopt the view of
non-being, accept the view of non-being, are opposed to the view of being.

"Any
recluses or priests who do not understand as they actually are the origin, the
disappearance, the gratification, the danger and the escape in the case of
these two views are affected by lust, affected by hate, affected by delusion,
affected by craving, affected by clinging, without vision, given to favoring
and opposing, and they delight in and enjoy proliferation. They are not freed
from birth, aging and death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair;
they are not freed from suffering, I say.

"Any
recluses or priests who understand as they actually are the origin, the
disappearance, the gratification, the danger and the escape in the case of
these two views are without lust, without hate, without delusion, without
craving, without clinging, with vision, not given to favoring and opposing, and
they do not delight in and enjoy proliferation. They are freed from birth,
aging and death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair; they are
freed from suffering, I say.”

(Buddha, taken from the Cula-sihanada Sutta, Majjhima Nikaya 11, Tipitaka. Notes: although
addressed to Buddhist monks & talking about recluses and priests, the above
is applicable to anyone; being and non-being can also be translated as
existence and non-existence; the crucial point here is that clinging to views
is an obstacle to enlightenment, which involves the complete letting go of all
views or beliefs.)

We humans are an ingenious lot. We can
cure many fatal diseases, produce amazing works of art, and we can even walk in
space. And yet, we can also be pretty foolish, too. We endanger our health with
intoxicants, argue & inflict violence on each other, and live as if
immortal, avoiding the fact of our impending demise. Such ways of living do
immense damage both physically & psychologically, but Buddha suggests that
we can go beyond these destructive behaviour patterns.

A common exercise encouraged in Buddhism
is to reflect on our mortality. We are mortal beings; not only do these bodies
age & die, but also our minds do likewise. Indeed, it’s the nature of the
human mind to change moment-to-moment in the constant flow of thoughts &
feelings referred to as the stream of consciousness. Based in this fact, Buddha
suggests that if we are to take any part of us to be a ‘self,’ it should be the
body rather than the mind, for although the body is constantly changing, the
mind morphs from one state to another much faster; it is in constant flux.
Watch it for five minutes and you will see the truth of this.

Ultimately, though, Buddha advises us not
to take any part of us as constituting a self, as both mind & body can be
seen to be natural processes largely out of our control. Moreover, we can see
that these human forms are ephemeral if we take the time to actually observe
the human condition with discernment. One day, you will cease to be, and when
the last day arrives, do you want to live with regret in your heart, having
lived in states of animosity & conflict? Is this how you wish to be
remembered: as someone who created much pain & suffering? Buddha promotes
the opposite to this, for not only will you help create a better world by
settling disputes fairly & swiftly, but you’ll be remembered more
favourably as well.

Mara is the Buddhist figure that
represents death & ignorance; in other words, he is the antithesis of
Buddha. Rather than selfless, he is selfish, rather than egoless, he is
egotistic, and rather than compassionate, he is unsympathetic. Similarly, Mara
personifies those aspects of ourselves that are pleasure-seeking,
sense-gratifying & lazy. If we give in to these negative traits, we will be
unable to realize the fruits of the Buddhist life, for we will live as
followers of Mara and not Buddha. This is how Mara overpowers us, as spoken of
in verse 7 of the Dhammapada quoted above. Living in such negative ways, we
will surely live in conflict with others, over-competing with them, causing
arguments & hatred. In giving in to these harmful modes of behaviour we are
“weak trees,” as Buddha puts it, easily subject to further suffering based upon
the fake identities we foolishly live from.

Those that are heedful of Buddha’s
teachings are compared to a “rocky mountain” beyond the destructive powers of
any storm. He encourages us to meditate on “the impurities” which is a practice
intended to reveal the real nature of our bodies. The focus of such reflection
is such aspects of the body as bones, organs, membranes, fat, mucus &
faeces, not to mention other distasteful stuff. Controlling our senses by not
overindulging in sensual activities will also help in keeping Mara at bay.
Conviction & energy with regards to being moral & meditative will give
rise to the wisdom that transcends suffering & the delusion of self.

Living from the realization of the
impermanent nature of these body-minds can lead to a more positive attitude
towards life, not wasting so much effort on conflictive behaviours. We’re more
inclined to being tolerant & forgiving with each other if we recognize that
we’re all in the same boat called ‘Impermanence’ that will disembark at the
port named ‘Death.’ Being controlled in our actions and seeing the body as it
truly is can lead to a letting go of sense-indulgent & self-centred
activity, thus opening us up to the Dharma (the-way-things-are). All
this can not only make life more tolerable for us all, but also lead to that
realization of selflessness that Buddha called ‘nirvana.’

The Dhammapada ('Verses
of Dharma' or 'Path of Dharma') is an ancient Buddhist text that is said to
contain some of Buddha's teachings in poetic form. The first chapter is
called Yamakavagga, 'Chapter of Pairs,' and the above three verses are from
this part of the book.

Tuesday, October 7, 2014

"There
is the case, monk, where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no
regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dharma; who
has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their
Dharma — assumes form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form
as in the self, or the self as in form.

"He
assumes feeling to be the self, or the self as possessing feeling, or feeling
as in the self, or the self as in feeling. He assumes perception to be the
self, or the self as possessing perception, or perception as in the self, or
the self as in perception. He assumes mental-formations to be the self, or the
self as possessing mental-formations, or mental-formations as in the self, or
the self as in mental-formations. He assumes consciousness to be the self, or
the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the
self as in consciousness.

"This,
monk, is how self-view comes about."

Saying,
"Very good, Blessed One," the monk delighted & approved of the
Blessed One's words and then asked him a further question: "Blessed One, how does self-view
no longer come about?"

"There
is the case, monk, where a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has
regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dharma; who
has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dharma
— does not assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form
as in the self, or the self as in form.

"He
does not assume feeling to be the self or the self as possessing feeling, or
feeling as in the self, or the self as in feeling. He does not assume
perception to be the self, or the self as possessing perception, or perception
as in the self, or the self as in perception. He does not assume mental-formations
to be the self, or the self as possessing mental-formations, or mental-formations
as in the self, or the self as in mental-formations. He does not assume
consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or
consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness.

Saturday, September 27, 2014

"Suppose
there were a pool of water — sullied, turbid, and muddy. A man with good eyesight
standing there on the bank would not see shells, gravel, and pebbles, or shoals
of fish swimming about and resting. Why is that? It is because of the sullied
nature of the water. In the same way, that a monk with a sullied mind would
know his own benefit, the benefit of others, the benefit of both; that he would
realize a superior human state, a truly noble distinction of knowledge &
vision: Such a thing is impossible. Why is that? It is because of the sullied
nature of his mind."

"Suppose
there were a pool of water — clear, limpid, and unsullied. A man with good
eyesight standing there on the bank would see shells, gravel, & pebbles,
and also shoals of fish swimming about and resting. Why is that? It is because
of the unsullied nature of the water. In the same way, that a monk with an
unsullied mind would know his own benefit, the benefit of others, the benefit
of both; that he would realize a superior human state, a truly noble
distinction of knowledge & vision: Such a thing is possible. Why is that?
It is because of the unsullied nature of his mind."

Sometimes,
modern spiritual teachers claim that consciousness is it, that is to say
that our true identity that lies behind all experience is consciousness, and
that this is somehow eternal and separate from the world. In a world where
traditional ideas of God & soul are falling at the sword of empirical
science, times can seem rather bleak. What’s the point in it all if there’s no
God to welcome our eternal souls into heaven? We work hard, try to be good
partners, parents, children, friends, neighbors, and model citizens, only for
it all to fade to dust upon our demise. Eternal life is a comforting idea, but
if science has squeezed God & soul out of existence, what’s left to be
never-ending?

Well,
consciousness is often seen as the modern equivalent of a soul, as it is lies
behind the experience of the body, the personality, memories, thoughts,
emptions and dreams, but is somehow apart from them; a nebulous ‘ground of
being’ or canvas upon which these other aspects of self are painted. This fits
in quite well with some traditional, albeit mystical, interpretations of the
self (often written as Self to emphasis its apparent ‘cosmic’ nature).
Known as Atman in Sanskrit, this Self is said to be identical with Brahman,
the prime being or entity from which the universe springs, summed up by its
most famous proponent Adi Shankara (788–820), thus: “Brahman alone is
real, the world is not independently existent, and the individual Self is not different
from Brahman.” This form of Hindu philosophy is known as Advaita, ‘Not-two’ or
‘Non-dualism.’ These ideas are often identified with forms of theistic mysticism
found in Christianity, Islam and other religions, as well as some forms of
Buddhist philosophy.

So,
is this Self identical to ‘pure consciousness’ as is often claimed? Well, there
are different ways to answer this question. We could form an opinion about it
based on our biases and belief systems, but this would simply be a set of
thoughts arising in this consciousness, wouldn’t it? It isn’t actually
investigating the question to test its validity, but merely formulating
concepts around it and then identifying with them, reacting to alternative
views with attachment and aversion. This won’t do. Alternatively, we might
actually look into experience and examine it to see whether this idea that
consciousness is the true Self is true or not. Looking at present experience,
what is accompanying consciousness? In other words, what is it conscious of? Consciousness
can be aware of sights, sounds and tactile sensations; smells, tastes and
mental stuff may be the focus of consciousness also. Whatever consciousness is
conscious of, however, it’s always conscious of something, isn’t it?
Consciousness is never conscious of itself, or of nothing. Try this little experiment:

Observe an object that is in front of you, noting its
size, shape, colour, and features. Note that consciousness of the object is present;
otherwise there’d be no awareness of anything at all, would there? Now, turn
attention around and try to observe consciousness in the same way as above, noting
its size, shape, colour, and features. Can this be done? What size is
consciousness? What shape is it and what colours? Such questions cannot be
answered, can they? In fact, upon reflection they seem rather ridiculous – of
course consciousness cannot grasp itself. There’s nothing to be grasped!

The
above experiment can be undertaken with other faculties than vision; hearing, smelling,
tasting, touching & thinking all work out the same. Consciousness can be
conscious of something else, but it cannot be conscious of itself. This applies
to mental as well as physical phenomena, with emotions, thoughts, memories,
imagination & dreams experienced in conjunction with consciousness. Objects
and consciousness are interdependent; we cannot have one without the other. In
Buddhism, the main way to classify consciousness reflects this
interconnectedness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness,
tongue-consciousness, skin-consciousness & mind-consciousness. But, there’s
no consciousness-consciousness.

In
the quote at the top of this article, it is stated that when consciousness ends
so does “name-and-form,” and vice versa. Here, name-and-form indicates the
totality of our experience. ‘Name’ indicates mental phenomena and ‘form’ points
to physical phenomena. A rough equivalent to ‘name-and-form is the modern term
psycho-physical. What this statement is saying, then, is that without
psycho-physical stimuli, there is no consciousness. Buddhism teaches that
consciousness is a dependent faculty or process. Indeed, the human condition is
generally described by Buddha as a set of interdependent processes as opposed
to a being in a universe. The claim of Buddhism is that if we practice
mindfulness & meditation to their conclusion this truth can be experienced.

So, what is Buddha’s response to those claims that
consciousness or Self is the ultimate truth of our being? Essentially it is to
deny it, but rather than through belief or dogma, it is to actually look &
see that this claim about consciousness is in error. Consciousness is a natural
process which is best described using the three characteristics of existence as
taught by Buddha: it is impermanent (anicca), imperfect (dukkha)
& impersonal (anatta). Moreover, as a natural process, consciousness
is the universe being aware of itself through this human form. There’s nobody
separate & eternal hiding somewhere in this body, nor is there a cosmic
consciousness that contains experience; consciousness arises in the reaction
between mind (‘name’) & world (‘form’). And if perfectly understood,
release from suffering is achieved, which is nirvana, the ‘blowing-out’ of the
delusion of a self.

Sunday, September 7, 2014

Subhuti asked, “How can
the practitioner who wishes to help all beings find enlightenment awaken the
complete and perfect wisdom?”

B

uddha said, “This most
subtle awakening comes about through moment-to-moment attentiveness. By way of
attentiveness, there is attainment to the ways in which things manifest, such
as form and consciousness. The practitioner awakens to perfect wisdom by becoming
blissfully free from obsessions with habits, names, sense experiences, personal
feelings, and with dread of dying and all despair that goes with it.

“Free to experience all
the rising of manifestation and its interdependent functioning without
believing it to be the final reality, the practitioner avoids two fundamental
errors – that this relative world is rooted on any solid foundation, and the
opposite error that the manifest forms we see are mere illusions without proper
physical and moral implications for every single mind-flow.”

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

"A
fatal thing, monks, are gains, favors and fame, a bitter, harsh impediment to
the attainment of the unsurpassed freedom from bondage. It is just like a
beetle, feeding on dung, full of dung, gorged with dung, standing before a
great dung-hill, who might despise other beetles, saying: 'I am a dung-eater,
full of dung, gorged with dung, and before me is this great dung-hill!'

"In
the same way, monks, if some monk is overwhelmed with gains, favors and fame so
that his head is turned, so, having risen early and taken his robe and bowl and
gone for alms to the village or market town, he eats his fill, gets invited
again for next day, and has a full bowl. Then he goes to the monks' park, and
boasts in the midst of the assembled monks: 'I have had a good meal, and I am
invited again for tomorrow. My bowl is full. I have got a robe, alms, lodgings
and medical requisites. But these other monks have little merit and little
influence; they do not get such requisites.' Thus this monk, who is so
overwhelmed with gains, favors and fame that his head is turned, despises other
well-behaved monks. But this will bring harm and sorrow to that wretched man
for many a long day. That shows you, monks, how disastrous gains, favors and
fame are, what a bitter, harsh impediment to the attainment of the unsurpassed
freedom from bondage. Therefore monks, you should train yourselves thus:
'Whatever gains, favors and fame may come our way we will reject, lest it turn
our heads.' So, monks, you should train yourselves."

(Pilhika Sutta, ‘Dung-Beetle Discourse’. Note: Although Buddha
is addressing monks in this discourse, this teaching equally applies to anyone
else seeking nirvana, or release from suffering.)

Sunday, August 17, 2014

Being a dog lover and having had three
dogs over the years, one of which still lives, the above dialogue involving Zen
master Zhaozhou* seems really important. Interacting with dogs, looking into
their eyes, doesn’t it seem obvious that Zhouzhou’s answer must be wrong? After
all, it’s a basic tenet of Buddhism that all sentient beings have the capacity
to realize nirvana. In other words, they all possess buddha-nature. And then
there’s that look in my dog’s eyes; a look of indicating a certain level of
insight, an ability to understand what passes between us. It is a mutual,
inherent knowingness.

Of course, Zhaozhou’s ‘No’ is a kind of
Zen riddle used to bypass logical thought processes and achieve satori,
or awakening to buddha-nature. If we take him literally, not only does this ‘No’
deny a basic Buddhist teaching, but it also contradicts our own intuition when
encountering other sentient creatures such as dogs. It could be, “Does a
chimpanzee have buddha-nature?” or “Does a frog have buddha-nature?” Whatever
the sentient being involved, however, surely the correct response should be a resounding,
“Yes.”

“Does a dog have Buddha-nature?”

“Yes.”

A less well-known dialogue involving
Zhaozhou revolved around the same question, but on this occasion the master
responded positively. Now, this answer fits with both Buddhist teachings and
that direct intuition referred to above. However, as a koan it probably wouldn’t
work as well as there is nothing to get stuck into and work with. When Zhaozhou
answers, “Yes,” the intellect isn’t challenged and neither is intuition.
Everything’s as it should be and therefore the status quo is not overturned,
making the likelihood of an experience of satori less possible.

The ‘Yes’ and the ‘No’ taken together
paint a fuller picture for us to peruse. Logically-speaking, dogs with all
other sentient beings possess buddha-nature, so the ‘Yes’ covers this. The ‘No’
serves the purpose of going beyond mere intellectual understanding of doctrines
however and calls us to experience buddha-nature for ourselves. ‘Yes-No’ acknowledges
both that my dog has the potential for satori, whilst leading me to experience
it for myself. I can rest in awakening knowing that my dog is already saved
from suffering as he has buddha-nature too. Maybe he sees it, maybe not, but it
lies at the core of who he is forever.

“Does a dog have Buddha-nature?”

“Yes-No.”

*Note: Zhaozhou Congshen (778–897) is one of China’s most famous and revered Zen
masters. The dog koan, also known as the Mu koan, Mu being the Japanese version
of ‘No’ in this context, is the most famous of all koans, often given to Zen students
to inspire their initial awakening into the truth of Buddhism.

Thursday, August 7, 2014

"To
what extent, Ananda, does one assume when assuming a self? Assuming feeling to
be the self, one assumes that 'Feeling is my self' or 'Feeling is not my
self: My self is oblivious to feeling' or 'Neither is feeling my self, nor
is my self oblivious to feeling, but rather my self feels, in that my self is
subject to feeling.'

"Now,
one who says, 'Feeling is my self,' should be addressed as follows: 'There are
these three feelings, my friend — feelings of pleasure, feelings of pain, and
feelings of neither pleasure nor pain. Which of these three feelings do you
assume to be the self?' At a moment when a feeling of pleasure is sensed, no
feeling of pain or of neither pleasure nor pain is sensed. Only a feeling of
pleasure is sensed at that moment. At a moment when a feeling of pain is
sensed, no feeling of pleasure or of neither pleasure nor pain is sensed. Only
a feeling of pain is sensed at that moment. At a moment when a feeling of
neither pleasure nor pain is sensed, no feeling of pleasure or of pain is
sensed. Only a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain is sensed at that moment.

"Now,
a feeling of pleasure is inconstant, fabricated, dependent on conditions,
subject to passing away, dissolution, fading, and cessation. A feeling of pain
is inconstant, fabricated, dependent on conditions, subject to passing away,
dissolution, fading, and cessation. A feeling of neither pleasure nor pain is
inconstant, fabricated, dependent on conditions, subject to passing away,
dissolution, fading, and cessation. Having sensed a feeling of pleasure as 'my
self,' then with the cessation of one's very own feeling of pleasure, 'my self'
has perished. Having sensed a feeling of pain as 'my self,' then with the
cessation of one's very own feeling of pain, 'my self' has perished. Having
sensed a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain as 'my self,' then with the
cessation of one's very own feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, 'my self' has
perished.

"Thus
he assumes, assuming in the immediate present a self inconstant, entangled in
pleasure and pain, subject to arising and passing away, he who says, 'Feeling
is my self.' Thus in this manner, Ananda, one does not see fit to assume
feeling to be the self.

"As
for the person who says, 'Feeling is not the self: My self is oblivious to
feeling,' he should be addressed as follows: 'My friend, where nothing
whatsoever is sensed (experienced) at all, would there be the thought, "I
am"?'"

"No,
Blessed One."

"Thus
in this manner, Ananda, one does not see fit to assume that 'Feeling is not my
self: My self is oblivious to feeling.'

"As
for the person who says, 'Neither is feeling my self, nor is my self oblivious
to feeling, but rather my self feels, in that my self is subject to feeling,'
he should be addressed as follows: 'My friend, should feelings altogether and
every way stop without remainder, then with feeling completely not existing,
owing to the cessation of feeling, would there be the thought, "I
am"?'"

"No,
Blessed One."

"Thus
in this manner, Ananda, one does not see fit to assume that 'Neither is feeling
my self, nor is my self oblivious to feeling, but rather my self feels, in
that my self is subject to feeling.'

"Now,
Ananda, in as far as a monk does not assume feeling to be the self, nor the
self as oblivious to feeling, nor that 'My self feels, in that my self is subject to
feeling,' then, not assuming in this way, he is not sustained by anything (does
not cling to anything) in the world. Unsustained, he is not agitated.
Unagitated, he is totally unbound right within. He discerns that 'Birth is
ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for
this world.'”

(Excerpted from the Maha-nidana
Sutta, Digha Nikaya 15, Tipitaka. Note: Ananda was Buddha’s cousin, personal attendant
& a monk who realized nirvana himself after Buddha passed away; Buddha often
referred to monks in his discourses as it was monks that he was addressing, but
the above teaching applies to nuns & laity also.)

Sunday, July 27, 2014

“Subhuti, this is how those who have
entered well into the way of the bodhisattva must think to themselves as they
feel the wish to achieve enlightenment:

I will bring to nirvana the total amount
of living beings, every single one numbered among the ranks of living kind:
those who were born from eggs, those who were born from a womb, those who were
born through warmth and moisture, those who were born miraculously, those who
have a physical form, those with none, those with conceptions, those with none,
and those with neither conceptions nor no conceptions. However many living beings
there are, in whatever realms there may be, anyone at all labelled with the name
of ‘living being,’ all these will I bring to total nirvana, to the sphere
beyond all grief, where none of the parts of the suffering person are left at
all. Yet even if I do manage to bring this limitless number of living beings to
total nirvana, there will be no living being at all who was brought to their
total nirvana.

Why is this so? Because, Subhuti, if a
bodhisattva were to slip into conceiving of someone as a living being, then we
could never call them a bodhisattva."

Notes: The above is
Chapter Six of the Diamond Sutra (Vajracchedikā
Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, or ‘Diamond Cutter Perfection of Wisdom Discourse’). Subhuti was a senior monastic disciple
of Buddha; a bodhisattva (‘being-of-enlightenment’) vows to lead all sentient
beings to enlightenment, and is the highest mode of existence for a Buddhist.

Thursday, July 17, 2014

“Whatever
kinds of worldly merit there are, all are not worth one sixteenth part of the
heart-deliverance of loving-kindness; in shining and beaming and radiance the
heart-deliverance of loving-kindness far excels them.”

(Buddha,
Itivuttaka, Sutta 27, Tipitaka)What
is it to be Buddhist? To meditate? To chant? To read Buddhist books? To be
generous? To be compassionate? To be kind? To be wise? No doubt a case can be
made for all of these and more to be part of what makes a Buddhist. But, when
we look at our behaviour as Buddhists, do we actually fit the bill? A Buddhist
(by definition) is someone who tries to put Buddha’s teachings into practice in
their lives. Simply paying lip service to Buddha & his teachings but
without living them isn’t really being Buddhist, is it? It’s acting, playing
out a role, a character in a movie called ‘Life.’ Thing is, if this is the
limit of our being Buddhist, isn’t it just another form of identification, an
aspect of the ego? He’s Muslim, she’s atheist, and I’m Buddhist; it’s what
makes me special. Really?

Does
being Buddhist make us special when compared to others? Well, surely no more or
less special than anyone else! You see, merely being Buddhist through birth or
allegiance doesn’t make us special among humans because we’re essentially the
same; we are born, we live and we die; and in our lives we all experience
suffering (dukkha). Can we say Buddhist suffering is more special than
other kinds of suffering? Of course not! Can we say that identifying with being
Buddhist as opposed to Christian or Jewish is a special kind of identification?
How can it be? Suffering is suffering, whether it be a Buddhist’s or a Hindu’s,
and identification is identification, whether it be Buddhist or Sikh.

So,
what are the Buddha’s teachings that we should put into practice so that we
might be truly Buddhist? Well, this isn’t as easy a question to answer as at first
it might seem. For, what version of those teachings are we to follow? Zen,
Theravada, Vajrayana, Pure Land, Nichiren, Shingon, Tendai, Huayan, Madhyamaka,
Yogacara, or Navayana? And these are just some of the main ones! Moreover, even
within these various traditions and philosophies there are different teachings
and practices which are not followed by all. Going back to the list mentioned
at the top of this article, can we say that someone fails to be Buddhist if
they don’t meditate or read Buddhist books, for example? Surely not; there’s
something more basic to being Buddhist than such specifics isn’t there?

Looking
at Buddhists and humanity at large can help us to see what’s needed by recognizing
what’s missing. Returning to that universal truth of dukkha (stress or
suffering), we can certainly see what people that are in pain need more of:
kindness. Buddha promoted a quality of mind called metta, often
translated as loving-kindness, although goodwill is a decent enough English
equivalent too. Yes, meditation and chanting have their place, as do the other
practices already mentioned, but not all of us can sit watching the mind or
recite ancient formulas. But what we can do is be kind. We can be kind to our partners,
our families, our neighbours, our work colleagues, strangers and acquaintances
alike.

You
may argue that though being kind is all very laudable, it doesn’t sound particularly
Buddhist. And I’d agree with this, because to be truly Buddhist is to be truly
human. It isn’t a label or affiliation that makes us Buddhist, but being true
to our human condition, and recognizing the same in others, changing our
behaviour towards them so that they suffer just a little bit less. A kind word,
a smile, a reassuring gesture; all such deeds are forms of metta in
action, and make us more like Buddha, whether we identify with him and his
teachings or not. Moreover, what’s the point in claiming to be Buddhist,
spouting Buddhist philosophy if our actions lack the most basic level of
goodwill? In reality, we are putting Buddhism in a bad light, waffling about
all kinds of wise ideas and theories but falling short of these lofty notions
in the way we conduct ourselves.

So, in
answer to the query that opened this article, what it is to be Buddhist, the
most basic answer is simply to be kind. Be kind to others and be kind to
ourselves. Be kind to humans and animals, for we all have the capacity to suffer,
but also the ability to alleviate some of that suffering. Be patient, and don’t
listen to gossip nor spread it; forgive as much as you can and don’t wish
others harm; see that all wish for happiness and safety – just as you do. If we can
do this, then we can claim to be Buddhist, not only in our convictions but also
in our actions, which is surely where the essence of being Buddhist is found.
And, in doing this, we move closer to all beings, human or otherwise, Buddhist
or otherwise. Being Buddhist means being kind.

Monday, July 7, 2014

This is what should be doneBy one who is skilled in goodnessAnd who knows the path of peace:Let them be able and upright,Straightforward and gentle in speech,Humble and not conceited,Contented and easily satisfied,Unburdened with duties and frugal in their ways.Peaceful and calm, and wise and skillful,Not proud and demanding in nature.Let them not do the slightest thingThat the wise would later reprove,Wishing: In gladness and in safety,May all beings be at ease.Whatever living beings there may be,Whether they are weak or strong, omitting none,The great or the mighty, medium, short, or small,The seen and the unseen,Those living near and far away,Those born and to be born,May all beings be at ease.Let none deceive anotherOr despise any being in any state.Let none through anger or ill-willWish harm upon another.Even as a mother protects with her lifeHer child, her only child,So with a boundless heartShouldThis is what should be doneBy one who is skilled in goodnessAnd who knows the path of peace:Let them be able and upright,Straightforward and gentle in speech,Humble and not conceited,Contented and easily satisfied,Unburdened with duties and frugal in their ways.Peaceful and calm, and wise and skillful,Not proud and demanding in nature.Let them not do the slightest thingThat the wise would later reprove,Wishing: In gladness and in safety,May all beings be at ease.Whatever living beings there may be,Whether they are weak or strong, omitting none,The great or the mighty, medium, short, or small,The seen and the unseen,Those living near and far away,Those born and to be born,May all beings be at ease.Let none deceive anotherOr despise any being in any state.Let none through anger or ill-willWish harm upon another. one cherish all living beings,Radiating kindness over the entire world:Spreading upwards to the skiesAnd downwards to the depths,Outwards and unbounded,Freed from hatred and ill-will.Whether standing or walking, seated or lying down,Free from drowsiness,One should sustain this recollection.This is said to be the sublime abiding.By not holding to fixed vews,The pure-hearted one, having clarity of vision,Being freed from all sense-desires,Is not born again into this world.The Karaniya Metta Sutta - 'The Loving-Kindness To Be Cultivated Sermon' - is one of the most beloved of Buddhist sutras. It is presented here for our contemplation, for in its short but succinct form, we have a priceless guide to becoming better beings. In the upcoming months, a series of reflections on the sutra will appear on this blog. The translation presented here is from the Western Forest Sangha Chanting Book, which can be downloaded from the following address: Abhayagiri Buddhist Monastery

Friday, June 27, 2014

Then
the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged
courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings &
courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he asked the Blessed
One: "Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?" When this was
said, the Blessed One was silent. "Then is there no self?" A second
time, the Blessed One was silent. Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his
seat and left.

Then,
not long after Vacchagotta the wanderer had left, Venerable Ananda said to the
Blessed One, "Why, Blessed One, did the Blessed One not answer when asked
a question by Vacchagotta the wanderer?"

"Ananda,
if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to
answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those brahmans &
contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism. If I — being asked by
Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no
self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are
exponents of annihilationism. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if
there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping
with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?"

"No,
Blessed One."

"And
if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to
answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more
bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'"

(Ananda
Sutta, Samyutta Nikaya 44:10, Tipitaka. Notes: ‘Blessed One’ & 'Venerable Gotama' refer to the
Buddha;eternalism is the view that there is an
eternal, unchanging self; annihilationism is the view that death is the
annihilation of self. Buddha’s teaching of anatta (not-self) states that there
is no self in the first place to cease existing. This is not to be understood as a doctrine
or philosophy, but to be experienced by the meditative mind.)